In network operations, balancing server loads is an ongoing concern with varying solutions employed. The industry overall has attempted to address global server load balancing (GSLB) issues and typically includes one or more of the following solutions.
Active-Standby
This solution is a more traditional disaster recovery approach where deployment uses two data centers; one is active and a second remains idle operating in standby mode. When the active faults, the second becomes the active data center.
Active-Active
This deployment alternative is typically more cost-effective and more resilient to interruptions. This solution usually has at least two data centers that are actively serving data so that if one center is disrupted, the other data center continues processing on behalf of the other, perhaps with degraded service.
Proximity
This solution is a variation of the active-active GSLB deployment which is configured to route the client to the “closest” data center to achieve better exploiter experience and to save or avoid over-usage of expensive wide-area bandwidth. This deployment alternative is attractive for applications that involve the transfer of large volumes of data, require a global presence or relies on real-time interaction with remote users.
It has been found that none of the above techniques are capable of addressing the compound and complex demands of current systems and networks. For example, in a networked system, it has been found that load balance of millions of query activities over a number of different types of servers with different configurations and networking capacity, locally or over dispersed locations, is difficult to manage. For example, using a light weight directory protocol (LDAP) scenario as an example, since no two exploiters' (requesters) requests typically consume equal amounts of LDAP resources, determining optimal load balancing for these varying requests at a server or global level becomes an issue. This same issue arises since, in real-world applications, networks include servers of various capacities and configurations. So, too many longer running queries hitting one LDAP server or site may impact the whole site throughput and, in turn, negatively impact other exploiting applications also directed to that site or other sites.
Accordingly, there exists a need in the art to overcome the deficiencies and limitations described hereinabove.